GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE

WORKING PAPER NO. 13-01

Climate Impacts on Agriculture: A Challenge to

Complacency?

Frank Ackerman and Elizabeth A. Stanton

February 2013

Tufts University
Medford MA 02155, USA
http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae

View the complete list of working papers on our website:

http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/publications/working_papers/index.html

Copyright 2012 Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University

 GDAE Working Paper No. 13-01: Climate Impacts on Agriculture

Abstract:

Recent research paints an ominous picture of climate impacts on agriculture, in

contrast to the relative optimism of research from the 1990s. Continued use of the earlier
research findings, in economic models and policy analyses, contributes to an unwarranted
complacency about the urgency of climate policy.

Earlier research concluded that the initial stages of climate change would bring
net benefits to global agriculture, thanks to carbon fertilization and longer growing
seasons in high-latitude regions. This conclusion has been challenged in at least three
respects. First, newer experimental studies have sharply reduced older estimates of
carbon fertilization effects. Second, the effect of temperature on many crops has been
found to involve thresholds, above which yields rapidly decline; the number of hours
above the threshold is typically more important than the average temperature. Third,
climate change will bring significant changes in precipitation; in a number of important
areas, decreases in precipitation may cause declines in agricultural production. Simple,
aggregated economic analyses of climate change have often omitted these crucial effects
of precipitation.

Adaptation to warmer and often drier conditions is necessary but not sufficient for
agriculture. Within a few decades, business-as-usual climate change would reach levels at
which adaptation is no longer possible. Emission reduction and climate stabilization are
essential to any long-run solution for global agriculture.

2
 GDAE Working Paper No. 13-01: Climate Impacts on Agriculture

Climate Impacts on Agriculture: A Challenge to

Complacency?
Frank Ackerman and Elizabeth A. Stanton1

A new paradigm is emerging in recent research on climate and agriculture. Its

findings are not yet well known outside of specialized academic journals but they
deserve much wider attention. Taken seriously, the new paradigm constitutes a challenge
to the complacency of most countries climate policies. A warming world may
experience food crises much sooner than expected, a threat that should inspire immediate
responses.
This article draws on our forthcoming book, Climate Economics: The State of the
Art (Ackerman and Stanton 2013) and on our own research, including a major study of
climate impacts on the U.S. Southwest (Ackerman and Stanton 2011), to attempt a
synthesis of recent findings on climate and agriculture and their implications for public
policy.

Background: the foundations of inaction

Climate policies depend, explicitly or implicitly, on estimates of the damages that

will be caused by climate change. The dependence is explicit when policy
recommendations emerge from formal economic models. Such models typically weigh
the costs of policy initiatives against the benefits. The costs of emission reduction are the
incremental expenditures for renewable electricity generation, low-emission vehicles, and
the like, compared to more conventional investments in the same industries. The benefits
are the future climate damages that can be avoided by emission reduction. The greater the
expected damages, the more it is worth spending to avoid them. As explained below,
many of the best-known, widely used models are significantly out of date in their damage
estimates, in agriculture among other areas.

Often, of course, policy decisions are not based on formal models or explicit
economic analysis. Yet even when politicians and voters decide that climate policies are
simply too expensive, they may be relying on implicit estimates of damages. Declaring
something to be too expensive is not solely a statement of objective fact; it is also a
judgment that a proposed expenditure is not particularly urgent. Protection against threats
of incalculable magnitude such as military defense of a nations borders, or airport
screening to keep terrorists off of planes is rarely described as too expensive.

1
Both authors are senior economists at Synapse Energy Economics, Cambridge, MA. This article is based
on research done while we were at the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). Corresponding author:
Frank Ackerman, frankackerman12@gmail.com.

3
 GDAE Working Paper No. 13-01: Climate Impacts on Agriculture

The conclusion that climate policy is too expensive thus implies that it is an
option we can do without, rather than a response to an existential threat to our way of life.
Can we muddle along without expensive climate initiatives, and go on living and eating
as before? Not for long, according to some of the new research on climate and
agriculture.

What we used to know about agriculture

Agriculture is one of the most climate-sensitive industries, with outdoor

production processes that depend on particular levels of temperature and precipitation.
Although only a small part of the world economy, it has always played a large role in
estimates of overall economic impacts of climate change. In monetary terms, agriculture
represents less than 2 percent of GDP in high-income countries, and 2.9 percent for the
world as a whole.2 It is more important for low-income countries, amounting to almost
one-fourth of GDP in the least developed countries. And its product is an absolute
necessity of life, with virtually no substitutes (fisheries, another food-producing sector,
will also be heavily impacted by climate change).3

In the 1990s, it was common to project that the initial stages of climate change
would bring net benefits to global agriculture (e.g., Mendelsohn et al. 1994). As late as
2001, the U.S. Global Change Research Program still anticipated that U.S. agriculture
would experience yield increases due to climate change throughout this century (Reilly et
al. 2001).Warmer weather was expected to bring longer growing seasons in northern
areas, and plants everywhere were expected to benefit from carbon fertilization. Since
plants grow by absorbing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air, higher CO2 concentrations
might act as a fertilizer, speeding the growth process.

Simple and dated interpretations of climate impacts on agriculture continue to

shape relatively recent economic assessments of climate damages. Widely used
integrated assessment models such as DICE and FUND are still calibrated to relatively
old and optimistic agricultural analyses.4 Even the more sophisticated and detailed
PESETA (Projection of Economic impacts of climate change in Sectors of the European
Union based on bottom-up Analysis) project, analyzing climate impacts throughout
Europe, assumed linear relationships between average temperatures and crop yields.5 It

2
World Bank data on agricultural value added as a share of GDP in 2008, http://data.worldbank.org.
3
In economic terms, the fact that food is a necessity means that it has a very low price elasticity of demand,
implying that it has a very large consumer surplus. If contributions to well-being are measured by consumer
surplus rather than shares of GDP, as economic theory suggests, then agriculture looms much larger in
importance.
4
For the damage estimates used in DICE, including a projection of virtually no net global losses in
agriculture from the first few degrees of warming, see Nordhaus and Boyer (2000); this earlier analysis is
still a principal source for damages estimates in the latest version of DICE (Nordhaus 2008; Nordhaus
2007). On the dated and problematical treatment of agricultural impacts in FUND, see Ackerman and
Munitz (2012); the 2010 release of FUND relies on agricultural research published in 1996 and earlier.
5
Using historical data from 1961-90, PESETA modeled yields at nine locations, as linear functions of
annual and monthly average temperatures (as well as precipitation). In three locations, there was a negative

4
 GDAE Working Paper No. 13-01: Climate Impacts on Agriculture

projected that temperature changes through the end of this century would cause yield
declines in Mediterranean and southern Atlantic Europe, and yield increases elsewhere
(Iglesias et al. 2011). For Europe as a whole, PESETA estimated little change in crop
yields for average European temperature increases up to 4.1C, with a 10 percent yield
decline at 5.4C, the highest temperature analyzed in the study (Ciscar et al. 2011).

Such estimates have fallen well behind the state of the art in the research
literature. There are three major areas in which recent results and models suggest a more
complex relationship between climate and agriculture: the revised understanding of
carbon fertilization; the threshold model of temperature effects on crop yields; and the
emerging analyses of climate and regional precipitation changes.

Reduced estimates of carbon fertilization

The best-known of the new areas of research is the empirical evidence that carbon
fertilization benefits are smaller than previously believed. Plants grow by photosynthesis,
a process that absorbs CO2 from the air and converts it into organic compounds such as
sugars. If the limiting factor in this process is the amount of CO2 available to the plant,
then an increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 could act as a fertilizer,
providing additional nutrients and allowing faster growth.

Almost all plants use one of two styles of photosynthesis.6 The majority of food
crops and other plants are C3 plants (so named because a crucial molecule contains three
carbon atoms), in which growth is limited by the availability of CO2, so that carbon
fertilization could be beneficial to them. In contrast, C4 plants have evolved a different
photosynthetic pathway that uses atmospheric CO2 more efficiently. C4 plants, including
maize, sugarcane, sorghum, and millet (as well as switchgrass, a potential biofuel
feedstock), do not benefit from increased CO2 concentrations except in drought
conditions (Leakey 2009).

Initial experimental studies conducted in greenhouses or other enclosures found

substantial carbon fertilization effects. The 2001 U.S. National Assessment summarized
the experimental evidence available at that time as implying yield gains of 30 percent in
C3 crops and 7 percent in C4 crops from a doubling of CO2 concentrations (Reilly et al.
2001). More recently, Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) experiments have allowed crops
to be grown in outdoor environments with a greater resemblance to the actual conditions
of production. According to a widely cited summary, the effects of CO2 on yields for
major grain crops are roughly 50 percent lower in FACE experiments than in enclosure

coefficient on a summer months temperature as well as positive coefficients on springtime and/or annual
average temperatures perhaps a rough approximation of the threshold model discussed below (Iglesias et
al. 2011).
6
A third photosynthetic pathway exists in some plants subject to extreme water stress, such as cacti and
succulents; it is not important in agriculture.

5
 GDAE Working Paper No. 13-01: Climate Impacts on Agriculture

studies (Long et al. 2004).7 Another literature review reaches similar conclusions,
offering important lessons from FACE, one of which is that the [CO2] fertilization
effect in FACE studies on crop plants is less than expected (Leakey 2009).

One summary of the results of FACE experiments reports that an increase in

atmospheric CO2 from 385 ppm (the actual level a few years ago) to 550 ppm would
increase yields of the leading C3 crops, wheat, soybeans, and rice, by 13 percent and
would have no effect on yields of maize and sorghum, the leading C4 grains (Ainsworth
and McGrath 2010). Cline (2007) develops a similar estimate; because C4 crops represent
about one-fourth of world agricultural output, he projects a weighted average of 9 percent
increase in global yields from 550 ppm.

While research on carbon fertilization has advanced in recent years, there are at
least three unanswered questions in this area that are important for economic analysis.
First, there is little information about the effects of very high CO2 concentrations; many
studies have only examined yields up to 550 ppm, and few have gone above 700 ppm.
Long-term projections of business-as-usual emissions scenarios, however, frequently
reach even higher concentrations. Does CO2 fertilization continue to raise yields
indefinitely, or does it reach an upper bound?

Second, most studies to date have focused on the leading grains and cotton; other
plants may have different responses to increases in CO2. For at least one important food
crop, the response is negative: Cassava (manioc), a dietary staple for 750 million people
in developing countries, shows sharply reduced yields at elevated CO2 levels, with tuber
mass reduced by an order of magnitude when CO2 concentrations rise from 360 ppm to
710 ppm (Gleadow et al. 2009; Ghini et al. 2011). This result appears to be based on the
unique biochemistry of cassava, and does not directly generalize to other plants. It is,
nonetheless, a cautionary tale about extrapolation from studies of a few plants to food
crops as a whole.

Third, carbon fertilization may interact with other environmental influences.

Fossil fuel combustion, the principal source of atmospheric CO2, also produces
tropospheric (ground-level) ozone, which reduces yields of many plants (Ainsworth and
McGrath 2010). The net effect of carbon fertilization plus increased ozone is uncertain,
but it is very likely to be less than the experimental estimates for carbon fertilization
alone.

Temperature thresholds for crop yields

Describing climate change by the increase in average temperatures is inescapably

useful, but at the same time often misleading. Increases in global average temperature of
only a few degrees, comparable to normal month-to-month changes in many parts of the

7
This article has been criticized by Tubiello et al. (2007); the original authors respond in Ainsworth et
al.(2008).

6
 GDAE Working Paper No. 13-01: Climate Impacts on Agriculture

world, will have drastic and disruptive effects. A recent study suggests that it may be
easier for people to perceive climate change as reflected in temperature extremes, such as
the marked increase in the frequency of temperatures more than three standard deviations
above the local summer norm for 1951-80 (Hansen et al. 2012).

An important new wave of research shows that crops, too, are often more
sensitive to temperature extremes than to averages. In many cases, yields rise gradually
up to a temperature threshold, then collapse rapidly as temperatures increase above the
threshold. This threshold model often fits the empirical data better than the earlier models
of temperature effects on yields.

It is obvious that most crops have an optimum temperature, at which their yields
per hectare are greater than at either higher or lower temperatures. A simple and widely
used model of this effect assumes that yields are a quadratic function of average
temperatures.8 The quadratic model, however, imposes symmetry and gradualism on the
temperature-yield relationship: yields rise smoothly on the way up to the optimum
temperature, and then decline at the same smooth rate as temperatures rise beyond the
optimum.

The threshold model makes two innovations: it allows different relationships

between temperature and yield above and below the optimum; and it measures
temperatures above the optimum in terms of the growing-season total of degree-days
above a threshold, rather than average seasonal or annual temperatures.9 Perhaps the first
use of this model in recent agricultural economics was Schlenker et al. (2006), drawing
on earlier agronomic literature. This approach has a solid grounding in plant biology:
many crops are known to have temperature thresholds, in some cases at varying
temperatures for different stages of development (Luo 2011).

The threshold model has been widely used in the last few years. For instance,
temperature effects on maize, soybean, and cotton yields in the United States are strongly
asymmetric, with optimum temperatures of 29 - 32C and rapid drops in yields for
degree-days beyond the optimum. For maize, replacing 24 hours of the growing season at
29C with 24 hours at 40C would cause a 7 percent decline in yields (Schlenker and
Roberts 2009).

A very similar pattern was found in a study of temperature effects on maize yields
in Africa, with a threshold of 30C (Lobell et al. 2011). Under ordinary conditions, the
effects on yields of temperatures above the threshold were similar to those found in the
United States; under drought conditions, yields declined even faster with temperature
increases. Limited data on wheat in northern India also suggest that temperature increases
above 34C are more harmful than similar increases at lower levels (Lobell et al. 2012).

8
That is, the equation for yields has both temperature (with a positive coefficient) and temperature squared
(with a negative coefficient) on the right-hand side.
9
Degree-days are the product of the number of days and the number of degrees above a threshold. Relative
to a 32C threshold, one day at 35C and three days at 33C would each represent three degree-days.

7
 GDAE Working Paper No. 13-01: Climate Impacts on Agriculture

A study of five leading food crops in sub-Saharan Africa found strong

relationships of yields to temperatures (Schlenker and Lobell 2010). By mid-century,
under the A1B climate scenario, yields are projected to drop by 17 to 22 percent for
maize, sorghum, millet, and groundnuts (peanuts) and by 8 percent for cassava. These
estimates exclude carbon fertilization, but maize, sorghum, and millet are C4 crops, while
cassava has a negative response to increased CO2, as noted above. Negative impacts are
expected for a number of crops in developing countries by 2030. Among the crops most
vulnerable to temperature increases are millet, groundnut, and rapeseed in South Asia;
sorghum in the Sahel; and maize in Southern Africa (Lobell et al. 2008).

Other crops exhibit different, but related, patterns of temperature dependence;

some perennials require a certain amount of chill time, or annual hours below a low
temperature threshold such as 7C. In a study of the projected loss of winter chilling
conditions in California, Germany, and Oman, fruit and nut trees showed large decreases
in yield due to climate change (Luedeling et al. 2011). In this case, as with high-
temperature yield losses, the relevant temperature variable is measured in terms of
threshold effects, not year-round or even seasonal averages. Small changes in averages
can imply large changes in the hours above or below thresholds, and hence large
agricultural impacts.

Studies of temperatures and yields based on recent experience, including those

described here, are limited in their ability to project the extent of adaptation to changing
temperatures. Such adaptation has been important in the past: as North American wheat
production expanded into colder, drier regions, farmers adapted by selecting different
cultivars that could thrive in the new conditions; most of the adaptation occurred before
1930 (Olmstead and Rhode 2010). On the other hand, regions of the United States that
are well above the optimum temperatures for maize, soybeans, and other major crops
have grown these crops for many years, without any evidence of a large-scale shift to
more heat-resistant crops or cultivars; temperature-yield relationships are quite similar in
northern and southern states (Schlenker and Roberts 2009). Thus adaptation is an
important possibility, but far from automatic.

Climate change, water and agriculture

A third area of research on climate and agriculture has reached less definite global
conclusions, but it will be of increasing local importance. As the world warms,
precipitation patterns will change, with some areas becoming wetter, but some leading
agricultural areas becoming drier. These patterns are difficult to forecast; climate model
predictions are more uncertain for precipitation than for temperature, and downscaling
global models to yield regional projections is only beginning to be feasible. Yet recent
droughts in many parts of the world underscore the crucial role of changes in rainfall.
Even if total annual precipitation is unchanged, agriculture may be harmed by changes in
the seasonality or intensity of rainfall.

8
 GDAE Working Paper No. 13-01: Climate Impacts on Agriculture

Overall, warming is increasing the atmospheres capacity to hold water, resulting

in increases in extreme precipitation events (Min et al. 2011). Both observational data
and modeling projections show that with climate change, wet regions will generally (but
not universally) become wetter, and dry regions will become drier (Sanderson et al. 2011;
John et al. 2009). Perceptible changes in annual precipitation are likely to appear in many
areas within this century. While different climate models disagree about some parts of the
world, there is general agreement that boreal (far-northern) areas will become wetter, and
the Mediterranean will become drier (Mahlstein et al. 2012).

With 2C of warming, dry-season precipitation is expected to decrease by 20

percent in northern Africa, southern Europe, and western Australia, and by 10 percent in
the southwestern United States and Mexico, eastern South America, and northern Africa
by 2100 (Giorgi and Bi 2009).10 In the Sahel area of Africa, the timing of critical rains
will shift, shortening the growing season (Biasutti and Sobel 2009), and more extensive
periods of drought may result as temperatures rise (Lu 2009).11 In the Haihe River basin
of northern China, projections call for less total rainfall but more extreme weather events
(Chu et al. 2009). Indian monsoon rainfall has already become less frequent but more
intense, part of a pattern of climate change that is reducing wet-season rice yields
(Auffhammer et al. 2011).

The relationship of crop yields to precipitation is markedly different in irrigated

areas than in rain-fed farming; it has even been suggested that mistakes in analysis of
irrigation may have accounted for some of the optimism about climate and agriculture in
the 1990s literature (Schlenker et al. 2005). In California, by far the leading agricultural
state in the United States, the availability of water for irrigation is crucial to yields;
variations in temperature and precipitation are much less important, as long as access to
irrigation can be assumed (Schlenker et al. 2007). Yet there is a growing scarcity of water
and competition over available supplies in the state, leading some researchers to project a
drop in irrigated acreage and a shift toward higher-value, less-water-intensive crops
(Howitt et al. 2009). An analysis of potential water scarcity due to climate change in
California estimates that there will be substantial costs in dry years, in the form of both
higher water prices and supply shortfalls, to Californias Central Valley agriculture
(Hanemann et al. 2006).

In our study of climate change and water in the southwestern U.S., we found that
climate change is worsening the already unsustainable pattern of water use in agriculture
(Ackerman and Stanton 2011).12 Nearly four-fifths of the regions water is used for
agriculture, often to grow surprisingly water-intensive, low-value crops; a tangled system
of legal restrictions and entitlements prevents operation of a market in water. If there
were a market for water in the Southwest, municipal water systems and power plants

10
End-of-century (2081-2100) precipitation under A1B relative to 1981-2000.
11
Lu (2009) notes that there is significant uncertainty regarding future Sahel drying, because it is
influenced by 1) sea-surface temperature changes over all the worlds oceans; and 2) the radiative effects of
greenhouse gas forcing on increased land warming, which can lead to monsoon-like conditions.
12
We studied a five-state region: California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico. California accounts
for most of the population, agriculture, and water use of the region.

9
 GDAE Working Paper No. 13-01: Climate Impacts on Agriculture

would easily outbid many agricultural users. Yet one-fifth of U.S. agricultural output
comes from this region, virtually all of it dependent on irrigation.

Water in the region comes primarily from the Colorado River and from
groundwater, neither of which can meet projected demand. The Colorado River is
infamously oversubscribed, and is the subject of frequent, contentious negotiations over
the allocation of its water. Climate change is projected to cause a decrease in
precipitation, runoff, and streamflow in the Colorado River basin, leading to frequent
water shortages and decreases in energy production (Christensen and Lettenmaier
2007)13.

Groundwater supplies are difficult to measure, and there are two very different
estimates of Californias groundwater reserves. Even assuming the higher estimate, the
states current patterns of water use are unsustainable, leading to massive shortfalls of
groundwater within a few decades.

In California, projections of changes in annual precipitation are not consistent

across climate models. Even if annual precipitation remains constant, however, climate
change can worsen the states water crisis in at least two ways. Higher temperatures
increase the need for water for irrigation, and for municipal and other uses. Rising
temperatures also mean that winter snows will be replaced by rain, or will melt earlier in
the year which can have the effect of reducing the available supplies of water.

The mountain regions of the western United States are experiencing reduced
snowpack, warmer winters, and stream flows coming earlier in the calendar year. Since
the mid-1980s, these trends have been outside the past range of natural variation, but
consistent with the expected effects of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change
(Barnett et al. 2008). In the past, snowmelt gradually released the previous winters
precipitation, with significant flows in the summer when demand is highest. The climate-
related shift means that water arrives, in large volume, earlier in the year than it is needed
and the peak runoff may overflow existing reservoir capacity, leading some of it to flow
directly to the ocean without opportunity for human use (Barnett et al. 2005).

We developed a model of the interactions of climate, water, and agriculture in

California and in the five-state region, assuming constant annual precipitation but
modeling temperature-driven increases in demand as well as changes in seasonal
streamflows (Stanton and Fitzgerald 2011). We found that climate change makes a bad
situation much worse, intensifying the expected shortfall in water availability. Under one
estimate of the cost of supplying water, we found that climate change is transforming the
regions $4 trillion water deficit over the next century into a $5 trillion shortfall
(Ackerman and Stanton 2011). If we had also modeled a decline in annual precipitation,
of course, the problem would have been even worse.

13
The Colorado River basin includes most of the four inland states in our study region, but only a small
part of California. Nonetheless, California is legally entitled to, and uses, a significant quantity of Colorado
River water.

10
 GDAE Working Paper No. 13-01: Climate Impacts on Agriculture

To those unfamiliar with the southwestern United States, this may sound like an
excursion into hydrology and water management rather than an analysis of agriculture.
No one who lives there could miss the connection: most of the regions water is used for
agriculture; virtually all of the regions agriculture is completely dependent on a reliable
flow of water for irrigation. As climate change presses down on the balance between
water supply and demand, it threatens to squeeze a crucial sector of the U.S. food supply.
This is a far cry from the optimism of earlier decades about what climate change will
mean for agriculture.

Conclusion

The extraordinary proliferation of recent research on climate change has moved

far beyond an earlier complacency about agricultural impacts. With better empirical
studies, estimates of carbon fertilization benefits have shrunk across the board as well
as being roughly zero for maize and other C4 crops, and negative for cassava. With a
better explanatory framework, focused on temperature extremes rather than averages,
judgments about temperature impacts on crop yields have become more ominous. With
more detailed local research, the regionally specific interactions of climate, water, and
agriculture are beginning to be understood, often implying additional grounds for
concern.

It should not be surprising that even a little climate change is bad for agriculture.
The standard models and intuition of economic theory emphasize options for substitution
in production less steel can be used in making cars, if it is replaced by aluminum or
plastic but agriculture is fundamentally different. It involves natural processes that
frequently require fixed proportions of nutrients, temperatures, precipitation, and other
conditions. Ecosystems dont make bargains with their suppliers, and dont generally
switch to making the same plants out of different inputs.

Around the world, agriculture has been optimized to local climate conditions
through decades of trial and error. The conditions needed to allow crops to flourish
include not only their preferred ranges of average temperature and precipitation, but also
more fine-grained details of timing and extreme values. This is true for temperatures, as
shown by the existence of thresholds and the sensitivity of yields to brief periods of
extreme temperatures beyond the thresholds. It is also true for precipitation, as shown by
the harm to Indian rice yields from less frequent but more intense monsoon rains, or by
the sensitivity of California agriculture to the delicate timing of snowmelt.

Global warming is now causing unprecedentedly rapid changes in the climate

conditions that affect agriculture much faster than crops can evolve on their own, and
probably too fast for the traditional processes of trial-and-error adaptation by farmers. At
the same time, the worlds population will continue to grow through mid-century or later,
increasing the demand for food just as climate change begins to depress yields. To adapt
to the inescapable early states of climate change, it is essential to apply the rapidly
developing resources of plant genetics and biotechnology to the creation of new heat-
resistant, and perhaps drought-resistant, crops and cultivars.

11
 GDAE Working Paper No. 13-01: Climate Impacts on Agriculture

Adaptation to climate change is necessary but not sufficient. If warming continues

unabated, it will, in a matter of decades, reach levels at which adaptation is no longer
possible. Any long-run solution must involve rapid reduction of emissions, to limit the
future extent of climate change. The arguments against active climate policies, based on
formal or informal economic reasoning, have been propped up by a dated and inaccurate
picture of climate impacts on agriculture, which lives on in the background of recent
models and studies. Updating that picture, recognizing and accepting the implications of
new research on climate threats to agriculture, is part of the process of creating climate
policies that rest soundly on the latest scientific research.

Frank Ackerman is a Senior Research Fellow at the Global Development and

Environment Institute and a Senior Economist at Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. He
holds a PhD in economics from Harvard University.

Liz Stanton is a Research Fellow at the Global Development and Environment Institute
and a Senior Associate at Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. She holds a PhD in economics
from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

12
 GDAE Working Paper No. 13-01: Climate Impacts on Agriculture

References
Ackerman, F. and Munitz, C. (2012). Climate Damages in the FUND Model: A
Disaggregated Anaysis. Ecological Economics 77, 21924.
DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.03.005.
Ackerman, F. and Stanton, E.A. (2013). Climate Economics: The State of the Art.
London: Routledge.
Ackerman, F. and Stanton, E.A. (2011). The Last Drop: Climate Change and the
Southwest Water Crisis. Somerville, MA: Stockholm Environment Institute-U.S.
Center. Available at http://sei-us.org/publications/id/371.
Ainsworth, E.A., Leakey, A.D.B., Ort, D.R. and Long, S.P. (2008). FACE-ing the facts:
Inconsistencies and interdependence among field, chamber and modeling studies
of elevated CO2 impacts on crop yield and food supply. New Phytologist 179(1),
59. DOI:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02500.x.
Ainsworth, E.A. and McGrath, J.M. (2010). Direct Effects of Rising Atmospheric
Carbon Dioxide and Ozone on Crop Yields. Climate Change and Food Security
Advances in Global Change Research 37(Part II), 10930. DOI:10.1007/978-90-
481-2953-9_7.
Auffhammer, M., Ramanathan, V. and Vincent, J.R. (2011). Climate change, the
monsoon, and rice yield in India. Climatic Change 111(2), 41124.
DOI:10.1007/s10584-011-0208-4.
Barnett, T.P., Adam, J.C. and Lettenmaier, D.P. (2005). Potential impacts of a warming
climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions. Nature 438, 3039.
DOI:10.1038/nature04141.
Barnett, T.P., Pierce, D.W., Hidalgo, H.G., et al. (2008). Human-Induced Changes in the
Hydrology of the Western United States. Science 319(5866), 108083.
DOI:10.1126/science.1152538.
Biasutti, M. and Sobel, A.H. (2009). Delayed Sahel rainfall and global seasonal cycle in
a warmer climate. Geophysical Research Letters 36(23).
DOI:10.1029/2009GL041303.
Christensen, N.S. and Lettenmaier, D.P. (2007). A multimodel ensemble approach to
assessment of climate change impacts on the hydrology and water resources of the
Colorado River Basin. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions 11(4),
141734. DOI:10.5194/hess-11-1417-2007.
Chu, J.T., Xia, J., Xu, C.-Y. and Singh, V.P. (2009). Statistical downscaling of daily
mean temperature, pan evaporation and precipitation for climate change scenarios
in Haihe River, China. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 99(1-2), 14961.
DOI:10.1007/s00704-009-0129-6.
Ciscar, J.-C., Iglesias, A., Feyen, L., et al. (2011). Physical and economic consequences
of climate change in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
108(7), 267883. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1011612108.
Cline, W.R. (2007). Global Warming and Agriculture: Impact Estimates by Country.
Washington, DC: Center for Global Development & Peterson Institute for
International Economics. Available at
http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/14090.

13
 GDAE Working Paper No. 13-01: Climate Impacts on Agriculture

Ghini, R., Bettiol, W. and Hamada, E. (2011). Diseases in tropical and plantation crops
as affected by climate changes: current knowledge and perspectives. Plant
Pathology 60(1), 12232. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-3059.2010.02403.x.
Giorgi, F. and Bi, X. (2009). Time of emergence (TOE) of GHG-forced precipitation
change hot-spots. Geophysical Research Letters 36(6).
DOI:10.1029/2009GL037593.
Gleadow, R.M., Evans, J.R., McCaffery, S. and Cavagnaro, T.R. (2009). Growth and
nutritive value of cassava (Manihot esculenta Cranz.) are reduced when grown in
elevated CO2. Plant Biology 11, 7682. DOI:10.1111/j.1438-
8677.2009.00238.x.
Hanemann, M., Dale, L., Vicua, S., Bickett, D. and Dyckman, C. (2006). The Economic
Cost of Climate Change Impact on California Water: A Scenario Analysis. CEC-
500-2006-003. Prepared for the California Energy Commission, Public Interest
Energy Research Program. Available at
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-500-2006-003/CEC-500-2006-
003.PDF.
Hansen, J., Sato, M. and Ruedy, R. (2012). Perception of climate change. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences . DOI:10.1073/pnas.1205276109.
Howitt, R., Medelln-Azuara, J. and MacEwan, D. (2009). Estimating the Economic
Impacts of Agricultural Yield Related Changes for California. CEC-500-2009-
042-F. California Climate Change Center. Available at
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-500-2009-042/CEC-500-2009-
042-F.PDF.
Iglesias, A., Garrote, L., Quiroga, S. and Moneo, M. (2011). A regional comparison of
the effects of climate change on agricultural crops in Europe. Climatic Change
112(1), 2946. DOI:10.1007/s10584-011-0338-8.
John, V.O., Allan, R.P. and Soden, B.J. (2009). How robust are observed and simulated
precipitation responses to tropical ocean warming? Geophysical Research
Letters 36(14). DOI:10.1029/2009GL038276.
Leakey, A.D.B. (2009). Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and the future
of C4 crops for food and fuel. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences 276(1666), 2333 2343. DOI:10.1098/rspb.2008.1517.
Lobell, D.B., Bnziger, M., Magorokosho, C. and Vivek, B. (2011). Nonlinear heat
effects on African maize as evidenced by historical yield trials. Nature Climate
Change 1(1), 4245. DOI:10.1038/nclimate1043.
Lobell, D.B., Burke, M.B., Tebaldi, C., Mastrandrea, M.D., Falcon, W.P. and Naylor,
R.L. (2008). Prioritizing Climate Change Adaptation Needs for Food Security in
2030. Science 319(5863), 607 610. DOI:10.1126/science.1152339.
Lobell, D.B., Sibley, A. and Ivan Ortiz-Monasterio, J. (2012). Extreme heat effects on
wheat senescence in India. Nature Climate Change 2(3), 18689.
DOI:10.1038/nclimate1356.
Long, S.P., Ainsworth, E.A., Rogers, A. and Ort, D.R. (2004). Rising Atmospheric
Carbon Dioxide: Plants FACE the Future. Annual Review of Plant Biology 55,
591628. DOI:10.1126/science.1114722.

14
 GDAE Working Paper No. 13-01: Climate Impacts on Agriculture

Lu, J. (2009). The dynamics of the Indian Ocean sea surface temperature forcing of
Sahel drought. Climate Dynamics 33(4), 44560. DOI:10.1007/s00382-009-
0596-6.
Luedeling, E., Girvetz, E.H., Semenov, M.A. and Brown, P.H. (2011). Climate Change
Affects Winter Chill for Temperate Fruit and Nut Trees. PLoS ONE 6(5),
e20155. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0020155.
Luo, Q. (2011). Temperature thresholds and crop production: a review. Climatic
Change 109(3-4), 58398. DOI:10.1007/s10584-011-0028-6.
Mahlstein, I., Portmann, R.W., Daniel, J.S., Solomon, S. and Knutti, R. (2012).
Perceptible changes in regional precipitation in a future climate. Geophysical
Research Letters 39(5). DOI:10.1029/2011GL050738.
Mendelsohn, R., Nordhaus, W.D. and Shaw, D. (1994). The impact of global warming
on agriculture: a Ricardian analysis. The American Economic Review 84(4),
75371.
Min, S.-K., Zhang, X., Zwiers, F.W. and Hegerl, G.C. (2011). Human contribution to
more-intense precipitation extremes. Nature 470(7334), 37881.
DOI:10.1038/nature09763.
Nordhaus, W.D. (2008). A Question of Balance: Economic Modeling of Global Warming.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Nordhaus, W.D. (2007). Accompanying Notes and Documentation on Development of
DICE-2007 Model: Notes on DICE-2007.v8 of September 21, 2007. New Haven,
CT: Yale University. Available at
http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Accom_Notes_100507.pdf.
Nordhaus, W.D. and Boyer, J. (2000). Warming the world: Economic models of global
warming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Olmstead, A.L. and Rhode, P.W. (2010). Adapting North American wheat production to
climatic challenges, 1839-2009. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 108(2), 48085. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1008279108.
Reilly, J.M., Graham, J. and Hrubovcak, J. (2001). Agriculture: The Potential
Consequences of Climate Variability and Change for the United States. U.S.
National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and
Change, U.S. Global Change Research Program. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Sanderson, M.G., Hemming, D.L. and Betts, R.A. (2011). Regional temperature and
precipitation changes under high-end (4C) global warming. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering
Sciences 369(1934), 8598. DOI:10.1098/rsta.2010.0283.
Schlenker, W., Hanemann, W.M. and Fisher, A.C. (2007). Water availability, degree
days, and the potential impact of climate change on irrigated agriculture in
California. Climatic Change 81(1), 1938. DOI:10.1007/s10584-005-9008-z.
Schlenker, W., Hanemann, W.M. and Fisher, A.C. (2006). The Impact of Global
Warming on U.S. Agriculture: An Econometric Analysis of Optimal Growing
Conditions. The Review of Economics and Statistics 88(1), 11325.
DOI:10.1162/rest.2006.88.1.113.
Schlenker, W., Hanemann, W.M. and Fisher, A.C. (2005). Will U.S. Agriculture Really
Benefit from Global Warming? Accounting for Irrigation in the Hedonic

15
 GDAE Working Paper No. 13-01: Climate Impacts on Agriculture

Approach. The American Economic Review 88(1), 11325.

DOI:10.1257/0002828053828455.
Schlenker, W. and Lobell, D.B. (2010). Robust negative impacts of climate change on
African agriculture. Environmental Research Letters 5(1), 014010.
DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/5/1/014010.
Schlenker, W. and Roberts, M.J. (2009). Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe
damages to U.S. crop yields under climate change. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106(37), 15594 15598.
DOI:10.1073/pnas.0906865106.
Stanton, E.A. and Fitzgerald, E. (2011). California Water Supply and Demand: Technical
Report. Somerville, MA: Stockholm Environment Institute-U.S. Center. Available
at http://sei-us.org/publications/id/369.
Tubiello, F.N., Amthor, J.S., Boote, K.J., et al. (2007). Crop response to elevated CO2
and world food supply: A comment on Food for Thought... by Long et al.,
Science 312:1918-1921, 2006. European Journal of Agronomy 26(3), 21523.
DOI:10.1016/j.eja.2006.10.002.

16
 The Global Development And Environment Institute
GDAE is a research institute at Tufts University dedicated to promoting a better understanding of how
societies can pursue their economic goals in an environmentally and socially sustainable manner. GDAE
pursues its mission through original research, policy work, publication projects, curriculum development,
conferences, and other activities. The GDAE Working Papers series presents substantive work-in-progress
by GDAE-affiliated researchers.

We welcome your comments, either by email or directly to the author or to GDAE:

Tufts University, 44 Teele Ave, Medford, MA 02155; Tel: 617-627-3530; Fax: 617-627-2409;
Email: gdae@tufts.edu; Website: http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae.

Recent Papers in this Series:

13-01 Climate Impacts on Agriculture: A Challenge to Complacency? (Frank Ackerman and

Elizabeth A. Stanton, January 2013)
12-07 Poisoning the Well, or How Economic Theory Damages Moral Imagination (Julie A.
Nelson, December 2012)
12-06 A Financial Crisis Manual: Causes, Consequences, and Lessons of the Financial Crisis
(Ben Beachy, December 2012)
12-05 Are Women Really More Risk-Averse than Men? (Julie A. Nelson, September 2012)
12-04 Is Dismissing the Precautionary Principle the Manly Thing to Do? Gender and the
Economics of Climate Change (Julie A. Nelson, September 2012)
12-03 Achieving Mexicos Maize Potential (Antonio Turrent Fernndez, Timothy A. Wise, and
Elise Garvey, October 2012)
12-02 The Cost to Developing Countries of U.S. Corn Ethanol Expansion (Timothy A. Wise,
October 2012)
12-01 The Cost to Mexico of U.S. Corn Ethanol Expansion (Timothy A. Wise, May 2012)
11-03 Would Women Leaders Have Prevented the Global Financial Crisis? Implications for
Teaching about Gender, Behavior, and Economics (Julie A. Nelson, September 2012)
11-02 Ethics and the Economist: What Climate Change Demands of Us (J. A. Nelson, May
2011)
11-01 Investment Treaty Arbitration and Developing Countries: A Re-Appraisal (Kevin P.
Gallagher and Elen Shrestha, May 2011)
10-06 Does Profit-Seeking Rule Out Love? Evidence (or Not) from Economics and Law (Julie
A. Nelson, September 2010)
10-05 The Macroeconomics of Development without Throughput Growth
(Jonathan Harris, September 2010)
10-04 Buyer Power in U.S. Hog Markets: A Critical Review of the Literature (Timothy A. Wise
and Sarah E. Trist, August 2010)
10-03 The Relational Economy: A Buddhist and Feminist Analysis (Julie A. Nelson, May 2010)
10-02 Care Ethics and Markets: A View from Feminist Economics (Julie A. Nelson, May 2010)
10-01 Climate-Resilient Industrial Development Paths: Design Principles and Alternative
Models (Lyuba Zarsky, February 2010)
09-08 Agricultural Dumping Under NAFTA: Estimating the Costs of U.S. Agricultural Policies
to Mexican Producers (Timothy A. Wise, December 2009)
09-07 Getting Past "Rational Man/Emotional Woman": How Far Have Research Programs in
Happiness and Interpersonal Relations Progressed? (Julie A. Nelson, June 2009)

View the complete list of working papers on our website:

http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/publications/working_papers/index.html